In the 11-year period of 2005 through 2015, canines killed 360 Americans. Pit bulls contributed to 64% (232) of these deaths. Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers contributed to 76% of the total recorded deaths. | More »

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Multnomah County Sued by VictimPortland, OR - Since the recent attack in Molalla, the Oregonian newspaper has written another pit bull debate story. Unfortunately the piece focuses on "to ban" or "not to ban," instead of engaging the many options that lie between. Progressive cities such as Omaha and Little Rock have passed laws that combine anti-tethering and breed-specific laws. Omaha requires pit bull owners to carry insurance and to muzzle the dog when off-property. Little Rock requires pit bull owners to spay/neuter, microchip and register their dogs.

The article also talks about an attack this past summer that points to a glowing problem in Multnomah County, which hosts the city of Portland. Several weeks ago, a separate article (Counties keep loose leash on bad dogs) talked about the dismal rate of dangerous dog convictions in the county, 1 per 651 bite investigations. While over in Washington County, there were 5 convictions for 363 bite investigations. The system in Multnomah appears broken and now the county is being sued. We can only hope the lawsuit stretches into 7 figures.

"Jennifer Scott of Portland said she spent five days in the hospital after a loose pit bull/Rottweiler mix bit her on the hands, shoulders, arms and chest this summer as she left home with her Dachshund. According to a lawsuit she filed against the dog's owner, the estate of the owner's father and Multnomah County, the 98-pound dog, Buddha, had previously sent two other people to the hospital in attacks in 2005 and 2006.

The lawsuit says Scott is still receiving medical care for her injuries and estimates her economic damages at $150,000 since the attack. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that Multnomah County failed to follow its own dangerous-dog rules in dealing with Buddha. Multnomah County code has various categories for dangerous pets. It defines as "level 4" behavior any at-large dog that "aggressively bites any person." An attack at that level would trigger restrictions on how and where the animal could be kept."

Adam Goldfarb, issues specialist for the Humane Society of the United States, is mentioned in the article as well. He said that "going after the dog owner" and anti-tethering laws could help reduce the dangerous dog problem, even though he points out that unneutered dogs also pose a significant threat. This is exactly why Little Rock combined anti-tethering with a mandatory spay/neuter law for pit bulls. Such a law considerably cuts down on the backyard breeding of pit bulls and reduces the occupancy rates of pit bulls in shelters too.

Municipalities and policy makers must weigh the rights of victims, such as Jennifer Scott, Christopher Friesen and Jayda Kempas, versus the rights of dog owners. The Multnomah County example shows that existing county laws did little to prevent this attack. Furthermore, it appears that even after the dog had previously bitten two times and sent both victims to the hospital, the law did not require the owner to have liability insurance. It is disheartening how heavily Multnomah County laws currently favor dog owners.

How much money is this costing communities to let a front group come in and propagandize for an industry? Use animal control for their own devices? Hold communities hostage to paying for and enabling pit bulls?

DOG BREEDERS infiltrating animal control progreams to protect dog breeders from things like licensing or regulation, and to run animal control as dog breeder front groups

Anonymous | 12/27/2008 4:31 PM | Flag" However, she was pleased to announce that the NAIA will soon unleash its own animal control training program"

Animal control run by DOG BREEDERS, PUPPY MILLERS, and DOG FIGHTERS.

Looks like maybe Multnomah County was a trial run?

So the plan is to get these "front groups" that claim to love dogs and be humane-oriented (but really represent dog breeder financial interests) to go in and "consult" for animal control and set up programs?

NAIA is a FRONT GROUP and LOBBYING GROUP FOR FOR-PROFIT DOG BREEDERS!!!!!!

It is a disgrace that any public organization or entity would get involved with an industry front group in any way.

They have lobbied together for dog breeder interests, and share each other's propaganda etc.

Anonymous | 12/27/2008 5:09 PM | FlagAnd for the coup de grace on this situation,

Cindy Leung of Multnomah County Animal Control is a for-profit DOG BREEDER AND UKC JUDGE and breeder lobbyist

(UKC, whose major interest is PIT BULLS)

"Next up was Cindy Leung. Cindy is a certified pet dog trainer and utilizes her skills at the shelter level, is a grant writer and program coordinator for the Multnomah County Animal Control in Portland, Oregon. She is a regular contributor to “Dog Sport Magazine” and is the president of the Mixed Breed Dog Clubs of America.She has numerous titles on her dogs and is an UKC judge"

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/NWDogActivities/message/7646

She clearly is representing herself to the community as a "dog trainer" and leaving out the whole conflict of interest dog breeder/pit bull breeder/pit bull LOBBYIST issue.

Holly Stump is a pit bull breeder (and NAIA member) in Ipswich Massachusetts who manipulated a Ma state rep, Rep Brad Hill, into promoting a Dangerous Dog Bill that would have HELPED PROTECT aggressive dogs and the people who breed them.

The law would have allowed multiple attacks before a dog was declared dangerous, would have allowed dangerous status to be lifted if the owner went to a lame dog training class (probably run by breeders like Cindy Leung) and would HAVE WIPED THE DOG'S RECORD CLEAN if the dog didn't bite again for some months

Meaning that the aggressive dog could be hidden away in another state until the waiting period was up, then come back with a clean record to attack again

Brad Hill's bill was shot down.

But it looks like Cindy Leung in Multnomah County has instituted her own version of her pit bull breeders friends "protect the aggressive dog" plan.

Trigger | 12/27/2008 10:11 PM | FlagIt is SO clear that county policy makers have no idea what is going on. When you look at these three counties side-by-side it's a dead ringer that Multnomah County Animal Services is bending over backwards to protect dangerous dogs...Wonder how that 1-4 scale actually works? Wonder how many previous bite victims would come forward with their own stories of Multnomah County Animal Services upon learning about the Jennifer Scott (Baumgartner, Nelson and Price www.bnplaw.com) lawsuit?

In the other article, it notes Multnomah dangerous dog laws:

Potentially dangerous dogs are classified on a scale of 1 (for example chasing people) to 4 (biting someone on public property), depending in part on the dog's history of attacks. Dangerous dogs -- as opposed to potentially dangerous dogs -- are kept in a special facility or euthanized. Dogs classified as 3 or 4 must be securely enclosed, but the enclosures can be at the owner's home. Owners may also be required to post signs about the dog, muzzle it when taken off the property and pay special fees. Dogs can be declassified as potentially dangerous within two years.

So Cindy Leung says she is a grantwriter, and somewhere it says she organized this ridiculous, nonsensical "dog training" event with a pit bull promotion business.

That promotes DOG BREEDERS

So did she get Petsmart Charities to give money to an event that SHE is getting paid for? Or her dog breeder friends?

This dog training event has NOTHING to do with animal welfare whatsover.

Is someone asleep at the wheel at Petsmart Charities? Do these dog breeders have some plant at Petsmart Charities channelling money to them?

There need to be some hard answers from Petsmart Charities.

Why would Petsmart Charities be giving a grant to a breeder who is involved with a hardcore, radical breeder lobbying organization like NAIA? To a breeder who has people getting mauled by dangerous dogs under her watch?

Why would Petsmart Charities get involved with this Animal Farm organization that seems to be a dog breeder propaganda mill?

Brenda Barnette is a for-profit dog breeder who is involved with an AKC breed club that GIVES MONEY TO NAIA for lobbying, and has actively lobbied AGAINST animal welfare interests to support dog breeder financial interests

What is a dog breeder lobbyist doing running Seattle Humane Society?

When the Oprah puppy mill show hit the airwaves, Brenda Barnette (as CEO of Seattle Humane Society) actually wrote a letter to the paper DEFENDING DOG BREEDERS and trying to tell the public that the Seattle Humane Society says dog breeders are good. It was just a public relations piece for the dog breeding industry, and Barnette neglected to mention her AKC involvement, breeder status (and that her AKC is involved in & profits from & lobbies for the puppy mill business.)

But there she was, in the name of the Seattle Humane Society, trying to whitewash the reputation of her soiled dog breeder industry.

At a previous shelter job, she actually held an event characterised as an "adoption event" where the main attraction was a promotion of the breed of dog her daughter breeds!

What is going on at Seattle Humane Society? Again, why would they hire a dog breeder industry lobbyist to use the name of the society to run pr campaigns for for-profit breeder interests?

This Barnette is also involved with a cabal of Nathan Winograd No Kill people that are trying to take over King County Animal Control and privatize it, so that taxpayer dollars will be supporting the breeders. Trying to pull a Barking Hound, Georgia set up.

Barnette is involved with Claire Loebs Davis, a Best Friends associate, running a kcac exposed smear campaign to try to get animal control officers fired and replaced with privatized Winograd plants.

http://brucecordell.blogspot.com/2008/09/animal-propaganda-20.html

Read all the comments to the end.

Anonymous | 12/28/2008 2:42 PM | FlagCindy Leung is running some business called Mixed Breed Dog Club of America

Well, look who was the super special guest speaker at her business's event. PATTI STRAND

Deb Wood never bothers to mention to the public that she is an AKC breeder and breeder lobbyist

Yet she uses her column to propagandize and lobby for dog breeder industry financial interests

(see Animal Farm person posting a thank you to Deb in the comments)

Deb Wood is also a pal of Patti Strand

So why is the Portland Oregonian allowing someone with a personal financial interest in dog breeding and lobbying to write a column that lobbies for those interests, yet she hides her business activities?

This is what these breeders do. They do not disclose to their employers that they have BUSINESS INTERESTS in the field. And we end up with deception like this.

Would the Oregonian allow a tobacco industry lobbyist to write a column on health?

Anonymous | 12/28/2008 3:03 PM | FlagHere is Deb Deborah Wood using the Portland Oregonian to let Patti Strand come right in and propagandize for the AKC puppy mill breeders

http://www.cal.net/~pamgreen/designer_dogs_by_wood.html

The AKC is threatened by the designer mixed breed dog market because the AKC gets no registration money from mixes.

The AKC makes most of its money registering puppy mill purebreds, and this Wood column is a propaganda piece FOR the AKC maligning the designer mixes in hopes that people will go back to buying the AKC puppy mill purebreds.

Those puppy mill purebreds that Patti Strand sets up the business with for AKC.

The Portland Oregonian is allowing private business lobbying to operate under the guise of "journalism" right under its nose.

"A breed is a group of dogs that have been selectively bred to predictably possess and produce certain characteristics, such as speed, size, temperament, performance ability or appearance," said Strand. "It takes generations of selective breeding to produce healthy dogs that breed true to type."

So Patti Strand is basically ADMITTING that temperament is a by-product of selective breeding, and that breeds are bred to be "true to type"

Pit bulls. Aggression.

Yet Patti Strand and NAIA get the dog fighters cheering on their web sites by lobbying against bsl and claiming that the opposite of what she states is true.

Felony | 12/29/2008 1:43 AM | Flag"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill